Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages

Active discussions

WikiProject Languages (Rated Project-class)
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Overcategorization: Hindi and UrduEdit

I object to this line "colloquial registers of Hindi and Urdu are almost completely mutually intelligible, so they are sometimes classified as one language, Hindustani, instead of two separate languages" in the title of the website ...

Hindi and Urdu have EXACTLY the same relationship that Serbian and Croatian have. The difference is that Hindi and Urdu are not European, thus the author's prejudice in dividing Hindi and Urdu as "separate" languages, even with this ridiculous heading noting they're actually the same spoken language. Serbian is spoken by the religiously Eastern Orthodox and uses the Cyrillic alphabet. Croatian is the Catholic, Roman alphabet version of the SAME language spoken in Serbia. Urdu is written with an Arabic script and its speakers are, by and large, Muslim. Hindi is written in its own, different script, and, by and large, spoken by Hindus, but these are the SAME language, like Serbo-Croatian. The differences and similarities in these two/four languages is striking, yet, in an apparent western bias, you divide the Hindi/Urdu speakers into two different languages (thereby lowering the number of speakers of this one true language, while uniting Serbo-Croatian to give them a higher position in the count of "number of speakers").

I write this by way of experience. I am a white North American native English speaker who butchers Spanish as my only semi-second language. But I have watched my Delhi wife converse effortlessly with South Indians (who supposedly don't speak Hindi, but I've never met one yet here in the USA that couldn't understand her Hindi) and, more to the point, Pakistanis, without issue. She speaks with them as easily as I can speak to an Australian. Sure, Australians don't sound like Americans, but my understanding of them is a WHOLE lot better than my Spanish speaking brethren. If Serbo-Croatian is going to be listed as one language (and it should be), Hindi and Urdu deserve the same. Mutual intelligibility is more important than religion or script or past political difference when the subject is "spoken languages". Please apply the same standard for eastern languages that you shower on western ones, and list Hindi-Urdu speakers as a whole, instead of dividing them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources, both South Asian and western sources, describe it differently. The article Hindustani language exactly explains why Hindi and Urdu are mutually intelligible at the colloquial level, but not on the literary level. So they do not have "the same relationship that Serbian and Croatian have" (add: Bosnian, Montegrin). You will not succeed to write a text in Standard Croatian that will be unintelligible to a Serb, Bosnian or Montegrin provided they can read Latin script, whereas Hindi or Urdu texts at a sufficiently sophisticated level can be quite unintelligible to a speaker of the other variant. If anything is ridiculous here, it is to speak of an "apparent western bias". Quite to contrary, many Hindi and Urdu speakers find it condescending when English WP tells them that actually they speak the "same language". –Austronesier (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Language taggingEdit

Is there a way to opt a page out of bot-aided spell-checks? It is nice that language tags assists spellcheckers in their semi-automatized cleanup task, but: who assists us in manually adding these tags for the benefit of an automatized process? Whenever I see this {{cleanup lang}}-tag added, I feel I'd rather check the spelling manually once in a while rather than to bloat the code, which makes the pages harder to edit. –Austronesier (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Bots can be excluded from a given page using {{bots}} (provided they're exclusion compliant). However, most typo fixing appears to be done manually (or semi-manually using AWB) – I don't know if there's a way to turn that off. The bigger issue here is that preventing spellchecker cock-ups is only one of the many purposes of lang tagging, a more important one has to do with accessibility – screen readers need the tag in order to appropriately render the text in the correct language rather than attempt to pronounce it as an English word. Screen readers should probably recognise some of the major languages, but I'd be surprised if they cared for the rest. I sincerely doubt lang tagging in an article like Medumba language would ever make a meaningful difference to accessibility. In principle, tagging there should be a good idea, but in practice it will involve a lot of effort with little tangible benefit. If it were up to me, {{cleanup lang}} would just be removed from this article – even if you agree with the need for inserting lang formatting there, there's absolutely no need to have such a technical task prominently advertised to readers. – Uanfala (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm continuing this at Template talk:Lang#Is the template needed for obscure languages?Uanfala (talk) 01:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Accepted terminology for languages that are not currently spokenEdit

Input from a broader community of scholars wanted for discussion of the terms 'dormant' or 'sleeping' vs 'extinct'/'dead' for languages that do not have a current community of speakers: see Indigenous Languages of the Americas: Talk page--AmyFou (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

"South Scandinavian languages" listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect South Scandinavian languages. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 20#South Scandinavian languages until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  16:55, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Should Template:Cleanup lang mention the transl template as well?Edit

I've been adding foreign language tags to Wikipedia for a while now, and I've noticed there's no mention of {{transl}} in the Cleanup lang template, or the supporting page for the template.

This, I think, is an issue that possibly needs acting upon. When I started adding foreign language tags, it was because, I think, I'd seen a cleanup lang template somewhere; clicked on it, and thought, "oh, right. So, I add {{lang|[ISO code]-Latn to romanised text, then, gotcha".

This wasn't correct; I should've used the transl template for romanised text, and I shouldn't have used the italic=no function for a number of words - because, as someone pointed out to me, if there's no indication to a seeing reader that a word should be pronounced differently, what's the point of doing so for a user with a screenreader? Not only that, the -Latn function causes some text to display oddly for certain viewers, leading some editors to actually remove the tags outright, as they think it interrupts the flow of the article and shouldn't be there. All of this, I emphasise, is my own fault. I'm still cleaning up my unfortunate mess today.

I know that Template:Lang mentions the transl function, but there's no mention of it in the Cleanup lang template or its supporting page. I really think it should; it's one thing getting editors to add lang tags, but it's another trying to raise awareness of the transl template, which even fewer seem to have heard of. It saves having to cleanup faulty language tags later, for one thing.

I don't know how changing the layout of the template would affect the pages it happens to be on, so apologies if this comes across as a "just do it, it's so easy" kind of comment for something that might actually be quite hard. However, I just had to point it out. I'd appreciate any thoughts on the matter. Thanks! --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 13:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Language names: disambiguationEdit

Feedback is being requested at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (languages)#Disambiguation by language family. The question is whether something like Mango language (Sino-Tibetan) is better as a title or Mango (Sino-Tibetan language). This concerns about 15 articles. – Uanfala (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Spanish language in the Philippines vs. Philippine Spanish as a separate variety or dialectEdit

A new editor has been added a language infobox and wording to the article Spanish language in the Philippines to be about Philippine Spanish as a distinct variety of Spanish, rather than just the history & usage of Spanish in the Philippines.

There were past discussions about this at Talk:Philippine Spanish#Merger and Talk:Philippine Spanish#Proposal to recover this page, where only one RS could be found describing it as a distinct variety of Spanish. Any additional insight would be much appreciated. — MarkH21talk 21:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Pinging the new editor, Dbee384, to discuss here as well. — MarkH21talk 21:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
@MarkH21: I saw one mention of Philippine Spanish here. —hueman1 (talk contributions) 15:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
See also very lengthy discussions and research that make up the bulk of Talk:New Mexican Spanish (formerly Spanish in New Mexico for a while, I think, and certainly re-scoped to include that). In short, it is much, much more difficult to write an actually encyclopedic and properly sourced article on an alleged regional dialect, than to have a section on dialectal difference at a broader article on the history and status of a language in a particular region. A dialect article is certain not impossible, but there are far fewer sources for it (and many of them will be things like linguistics theses/dissertations at regional universities, which may not even be online-accessible but require a trip to the university library, and which aren't very good sources to begin with). We probably need a general article with more specific dialect-related section much more than we need a dialect article, and we don't need both (if we had both, it would be a likely merger, unless the resulting merged article was so long it hit WP:SIZE limits. English itself is a bit of an exception, because this is English Wikipedia. An article like American English is very viable and there are reams of sources immediately available via Google Scholar and other journal searches.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  19:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
The source by Lipski mentioned in Talk:Philippine Spanish#Merger actually contains valuable data that illustrates the distinct (and pretty volatile) character of contenmporary Philippine Spanish, but at the same time gives the impression that much it is related to the L2- and semi-speaker status of ethnic Spaniards in the Philippines. It doens't look like a stable and established variant that could justify a standalone article. –Austronesier (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposed MoS addition on optional stress marking in Russian, Ukrainian, Japanese, Korean, etc.Edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
A WP:TALKFORK is not helpful.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  14:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

  FYI – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC?, for a proposal relating to optional characters/marks for indicating vocal stress, used in some foreign languages, include "ruby" characters for Japanese and Korean, and znaki udareniya marks in Ukrainian and Russian. The short version is that, based on a rule already long found in MOS:JAPAN and consonant with WP:NOTDICT policy, MoS would instruct (in MOS:FOREIGN) not to use these marks (primarily intended for pedagogical purposes) except in unusual circumstances, like direct quotation, or discussion of the marks themselves. Target date for implementation is April 21. PS: This does not relate to Vietnamese tone marks.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  19:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Even looking at the proposal, I'm not clear on what's being proposed. Is it that, except in extraordinary circumstances, we should not give the pronunciations of foreign words, as a violation of NOTADICT? Once we remove the pronunciations of Russian etc. words from WP, are we to go on to remove the pronunciations of English words as a violation of NOTADICT?
Also, I wasn't aware that ruby characters were used to indicate stress in Japanese and Korean. — kwami (talk) 03:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
@Kwamikagami: I think SMcCandlish's point is that the FL spelling of the lemma itself should not be hijacked to indicate pronunciation, like stress marks in Cyrillic, or Tagalog tuldik. These things only are used in dictionaries, but not in regular texts. It's not about separate IPA pronunciations. –Austronesier (talk) 10:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
But it's equivalent to IPA pronunciations, so why should one be allowed but the other not? You have the bold lemma, then in parentheses Cyrillic, Cyrillic with Latin transliteration, or Cyrillic with IPA. IPA is only used in a relatively small minority of articles. Russian orthography is close enough to phonemic that providing stress is all that is needed for the reader to be able to pronounce it. Whether the stress marking is in the Cyrillic or the transliteration isn't important, but we should have it somewhere. It would be quite a task to go through thousands of articles and add IPA (and verify that it's both correct and consistent) just because someone objects to adding stress marks based on a stringent reading of NOTADICT that we routinely violate with IPA and other guides to pronunciation. — kwami (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
The wording's been tweaked to make better sense.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  14:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IPA tonesEdit

Kwamikagami has been changing all numerical Chao tones into tone sticks, in articles on East and SE Asian languages. For example, 33 should be used, not ˧.

I am a specialist who works in this field and strongly recommend against this. Nowadays, Southeast Asian linguists do not use tone sticks to mark tones. This is something that only old-fashioned Sinologists do now. If in doubt, you can e-mail linguists working on SE Asian languages or take a look at STEDT.

This is the equivalent of converting IAST into IPA on all Indo-Aryan articles, Semitic transcriptions into IPA, or especially turning combining accents in African languages into tone sticks.

Can we get community consensus on this first? Please ping active linguistics editors if you can. Lingnanhua (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Or if Kwamikagami insists on using tone sticks, we need to at least have the numerical tones and tone sticks placed side-by-side, similar to how many IAST and Semitic transcriptions are complemented by IPA. One way to implement this is to create a template that displays both numeral tones and tone sticks. Kwamikagami has agreed on his talk page that using such a template would be a good idea. Lingnanhua (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

We have a longstanding consensus to use IPA as the default transcription of pronunciation on WP. What you're arguing is essentially like insisting on Americanist phonetic notation for languages in the USA but encoding it as IPA. It's not necessarily a problem to use local conventions, but they shouldn't be the default, and we should always define what they mean. If you transcribe a tonic syllable as [se31], the reader won't be able tell if that's supposed to be a rising tone or a falling tone, and if falling, if it's a high-falling or a mid-falling tone.

It's fine to use specialist transcriptions, as long as we clearly define what we mean by it. Wikipedia is, after all, a global resource, not intended just for Sinologists and SE Asianists. You'll notice that for IAST transcription of Indic languages, they're tagged as IAST and linked to a key (or at least they should be). The problem is not just that the digits are not IPA, but that they are undefined. '3', for example, might be high pitch, mid pitch or low pitch, and which it is varies from language to language and even from author to author. In the languages I've worked on, for example, '1' is HIGH and '5' is LOW, and I've worked briefly with material where '1' is LOW but '2', '3', '4' or even '6' is HIGH. It's very confusing to try to read something where all the tone numbers are the inverse of what they're "supposed" to mean. Chao tone letters don't have that problem. As for combining diacritics, those are also IPA and unambiguous, so there's no problem using them. — kwami (talk) 01:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

There is an argument to be made for sticking to the original transcription. Mithun in her Languages of Native North America kept all the original transcriptions, even if they were archaic and opaque, to avoid corrupting data with her judgements of what it should be. (Especially a problem when the original has a typo and converting it obscures what it could be a typo for.) On WP, though, where our readers may be naive to the many orthographies and conventions that have been used over the centuries, we usually normalize unless there's some reason not to. For instance, rather than giving the pronunciation of an English word in Webster's, OED or Random House transcription, we will normalize it to our own in-house IPA convention, so that our articles are in agreement with each other. Specialist works can afford to be more persnickety, and works targeted to a limited audience (such as SE Asianists) can afford to ignore the rest of the world, but WP can't. — kwami (talk) 01:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

It's hardly a limited audience. Usage is on par with specialist linguistic transcriptions used for the languages of South Asia, Africa, and the Americas. We have specialists working in Sinology (Sinitic lgs), Austroasiatic lgs, Kra-Dai lgs, Hmong-Mien lgs, and even Austronesian lgs who all use this transcription. That is basically half of the Asian continent, and a large proportion of world's language diversity. We are already using IAST and other specialist transcriptions for the Indosphere, so there is no reason why the same can't be done for the Sinosphere and SE Asia. Lingnanhua (talk) 02:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
That *is* a limited audience. If you count the number of publications that use imperial units, you might claim that's not a limited audience either, but the global standard is metric. The global standard for phonetics is IPA. — kwami (talk) 02:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
US geography articles use imperial units, but there are templates to convert them for non-US readers. Wikipedia does not force readers to use *only* metric units because that would be highly impractical for the "limited audience" of US readers. Same goes for SE Asian languages. Lingnanhua (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
The original Sinologist/Mainland SE Asian transcriptions should nevertheless be preserved. They are so widely used that we must preserve the original transcriptions, like for IAST. Americanist transcriptions from many decades ago can often be converted because they tend to be obsolete and ambiguous, but Sinologist transcriptions are still used as standard in the 21st century. Lingnanhua (talk) 01:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
NAPA notation is also still standard in the 21st century, and it's no more ambiguous than MSEA transcription. There are even publications that in the year 2021 insist on NAPA and say they will reject submissions transcribed in IPA. You see the problem? You are personally not familiar with NAPA transcription, so you think it should be replaced by IPA, while you are familiar with your local convention, so think the rest of the world should cater to it. But an Americanist will likely feel the opposite: that MSEA transcription is a bizarre local convention that should be replaced by proper IPA, but that NAPA is ubiquitous in the literature and should therefore be replicated on WP. Everyone feels that their way, how they were educated in school, is the correct way of doing things, and that the rest of the world needs to accept it. The only global convention is IPA. — kwami (talk) 02:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
I actually strongly support the usage of NAPA in recent publications. I'm only saying that obsolete NAPA-like transcriptions from the early 1900s can be converted (to either NAPA or IPA). If it's standard NAPA, I would much rather have Wikipedia use that than converted IPA. But that's a different story. Lingnanhua (talk) 02:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't think proper NAPA should be converted to IPA. It's being used like IAST in many ways. But that's for the Americanists to weigh in on, not me. Lingnanhua (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

But instead of arguing over ideology, let's just start making the template. Lingnanhua (talk) 03:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment My take on it: use IPA standard in phonetic square brackets, but don't alter numeric tones in phonemic slashes or in conventionalized Latin transcriptions where obiously no full IPA-ization is intended. E.g. the change of Taishan ngwoi33 to ngwoi˧ in Tone_(linguistics)#Tone and inflection is pointless when it's obvious from the initial "ngw" that no IPA transcription is intended. –Austronesier (talk) 10:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
That's probably a good idea. And whatever you do, don't completely replace the original transcription with standard IPA, because I have seen many conversion errors where Kwamikagami converted from the original to IPA without preserving the original. Lingnanhua (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
I'd be curious what conversion errors you've found. But that rather proves my point: if I'm confused by a transcription, how many of our readers will also be? IPA is one thing, because it's the international standard. Any local or idiosyncratic convention needs to be clearly explained in each article it occurs in. — kwami (talk) 09:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I would also concur with Austronesier. The coincidentally relates to some of the confusion in the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC? thread, in which some (at least two) respondents have not been clearly distinguishing between explicit pronunciation material provided by {{IPA-xx}} and {{Respell}}, versus names/words in running text.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  14:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure there is any MSEA standard. I've seen forms ranging from IPA to plain Latin, usually with Chao pitch levels for phonetic transcription and often tone categories in phonemic transcription. There doesn't seem to be a parallel with IAST, which is a transliteration scheme like Wylie or Yale Korean. The issue of fidelity doesn't apply to the tone notation, since the Chao pitch levels 1–5 are in one-to-one correspondence with the IPA tone letters. (I've also seen 6 used, but for a level outside the speaker's normal pitch range.) Kanguole 16:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
FWIW, Enfield's The Languages of Mainland Southeast Asia is out now. Needless to say (←tried to bite my tongue, but can't), Enfield uses Chao 1-to-5 pitch levels in an otherwise very strict IPA notation. I think this is de facto standard. NB: The book is intended for a wide audience not necessarily familiar with the area, and apparently the series editors did not consider the use of Chao numbers as something esoteric and inaccessible to non-specialists. –Austronesier (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
It's still a local standard. For other areas it's backwards. Ambiguous conventions need explanation, and there's no conversion problem to make them IPA. — kwami (talk) 11:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
In any case, I agree to use strict IPA in strictly phonetic notation. This is first of all the case where you can't deliver the pronunciation with a full baggage of explanations, e.g. when giving the native pronunciation of a lemma in the lead. Otherwise, it depends on context and what we want to illustrate. If I were e.g. to expand the phonology section of Majang language based on Joswig (2019), I would probably use strict IPA for the tones at the beginning and explain how it translates into Joswig's notation, but then proceed to use the transcription of the source.
What about Help:IPA/Mandarin then? It uses IPA with Pinyin tone diacritics. Unlike IPA with Chao numbers, that's a hybrid convention I have rarely encountered outside of WP. –Austronesier (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Help:IPA/Mandarin uses normal IPA, with the simplification that the 'dipping' tone is analyzed as low. — kwami (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Oh yes, my dumb! –Austronesier (talk) 09:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment In principle, I agree with Kwami - in Wikipedia, all phonetic data needs to be presented in IPA, or it needs to be made very explicit in which way the transcription deviates from IPA. That, however, does not mean that all transcribed data needs to follow the IPA - that rather depends on the level of representation. If the transcription already represents analyzed data on the phonemic or underlying level, then of course the character inventory can be quite different from IPA. But even then there needs to be a clear key as to what these characters would stand for in terms of IPA. Kwami is right that it is not acceptable if only readers initiated to the regional jargon can fully grasp what the pronunciation of data would be. There is a very similar situation in Ethiopic studies, where uninitiated readers are left at a loss as to what to make of some vowels and consonants. Landroving Linguist (talk) 12:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


@Kwamikagami: Can someone with enough experience with templates create a template for tonal SEA languages, equivalent to Template:IAST?

I would suggest naming it Template:MSEA for the Mainland Southeast Asian linguistic area. Lingnanhua (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I can do that if you give me a little time. Could you create the key, with IPA equivalents to all the non-IPA characters, and which characters may be ambiguous? — kwami (talk) 01:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Can @Kanguole: or @Tibetologist: help create a key? There is probably already a key published somewhere. I will be compiling a key, but it would help if we can cross-check each other's work. Lingnanhua (talk) 01:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to move the Expand language template to Talk pagesEdit

A discussion about moving the {{Expand language}} template (and its associated templates, {{Expand French}}, {{Expand Spanish}}, and so on) from article pages to Talk pages is taking place at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 April 16#Template:Expand language. Your feedback would be appreciated. Mathglot (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

ConLang Code RegistryEdit

Since there are several parameters just for conlangs and many of them don't have standard codes, you may want to add a parameter for the ConLang Code Registry. The list is extensive, and Rebecca G. Bettencourt operates the Under-ConScript Unicode Registry. --Error (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC) [copied from infobox talk page by — kwami (talk)]

What do people think? We have more conlang articles than we used to; last time I remember s.t. like this coming up we didn't even have articles for all the conlangs with ISO codes, with the argument that they weren't notable. I went through them and added the art-x-... codes from the Registry (though I was reverted for Enochian). But for the more formal-looking private use (q...) ISO codes, I'd like to see some indication that they're useful as identifiers. Is there any kind of consistency? — kwami (talk) 00:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I suspect, from the inability of anyone I know to contact them, that the ConLang Code Registry is no longer being maintained. — kwami (talk) 05:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikilinks for words-as-wordsEdit

Opinions sought on the appropriate link target (if any) for individual English words that are being listed as words in articles such as List of Greek and Latin roots in English/A. Discussion thread here. Cross-posting here since it seems the talk page I started the discussion on doesn't have many watchers. I'm tempted to boldly implement my preferred change soon in the absence of any objections, but it would involve big diffs spread over at least 27 articles, so I don't want to give the appearance of a WP:FAIT-style action. Colin M (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Need help with language templateEdit

Hi folks. I'm having a problem using the Farsi (lang-fa) template at Hamid Jasemian. Somehow I can't get the characters in the right order, probably due to Farsi being right-to-left writing system. Could someone please help? (talk) 10:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC) What you did looks good on my browser. — kwami (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
@Kwamikagami: Sorry, I should have been clearer: It does look fine here, too. But the source text doesn't. (talk) 10:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know what that means. It sounds like you're saying your sources are badly typeset. I checked if maybe you meant the html code for the article, that looks fine on my browser too. — kwami (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Ah, must be a browser thing. Firefox is fine but Safari is not. Thanks! (talk) 23:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Tamil languageEdit

I have nominated Tamil language for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 17:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Pennsylvania German language requested moveEdit

There's a proposal to move Pennsylvania German language to "Pennsylvania Dutch language" here. I'm interested in this project's input. Nardog (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Return to the project page "WikiProject Languages".